Privatefirewall updated

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by QBgreen, Aug 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. QBgreen

    QBgreen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Posts:
    627
    Location:
    Queens County, NY
    For those concerned:

    RELEASE NOTES - 7.0.21.1, posted 08/18/2010
    - Added Process Termination feature (integrated into tray alerts (via right-mouse function on Options in tray alerts)
    - Added Auto allow for certain services (setting the Process Monitor "slider" to medium will allow services running under system account. The High setting will allow only LOCAL/NETWORK services automatically.
    - Resolved code defects related to isolated BSOD incidents.
    - Fixed driver access check to \etc\hosts file.
    - Fixed defect related to determining correct process parent, parent of parent when one of those processes was terminated.
    - Fixed bug in where Privatefirewall identified (and generated unnecessary alerts) incorrect parent process chain due to windows reuse of obsolete PID.
    - Implemented modification to bypass application alteration check when/if gui/service has no access to it (WoW).
    - Added support for Windows 7 Mobile Broadband connections.
    - Discontinued support for Windows 2000 OS.
    - Modified various port and application related default settings/rules.
    - Fixed process termination bug when passed handle does not have adequate rights.
    - Resolved Windows Hook interception bug.
    - Added inter-process keyboard message monitoring capability to Process Monitor.
    - Updated driver certification in accordance with Microsoft Winqual Review - Qualifications Achieved: Logo - Microsoft Windows Vista family, x86 Basic, Windows 7, Windows 7 x64

    Get it: http://www.privacyware.com/personal_firewall.html
     
  2. kjdemuth

    kjdemuth Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Posts:
    2,960
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    Thanks for the update. I really liked private when I used it. Very easy to navigate. I'm glad that their still improving it. Good free firewall.
     
  3. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    They still need to tighten up Private FW's default settings. Even though it will increase pop-up alerts, I recommend as shown below...

    ScrHunt03 18-Aug-10.gif
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2010
  4. datarishik

    datarishik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Posts:
    182
    Great! Going to install it now but the previous versions were heavy on RAM for a firewall of its size. I hope it has been corrected now.
     
  5. bman412

    bman412 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Posts:
    261
    Can its hips be disabled?
     
  6. datarishik

    datarishik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Posts:
    182
    Well if u want to use it as a pure firewall or a packet filter without the HIPS just disable process detection and system anomaly detection in advanced settings by unchecking the same.
     
  7. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    RAM usage ~30MB after 6+ hours on WinXP. More significantly (IMO) total cpu time <1minute.

    By the way - - - I am accustomed to using OnlineArmor (OA). When running OA, I have it set to Run Safer for all internet facing apps. Therefore, whenever I am using PFW, I run internet facing apps using Drop My Rights.
     
  8. Kernelwars

    Kernelwars Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Posts:
    2,155
    Location:
    TX
    :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
     
  9. datarishik

    datarishik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Posts:
    182
    Hi bellgamin. You being an experienced user of PF, may I ask how have you set application rules for system services in PF? Thanks.
     
  10. TheMozart

    TheMozart Former Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Posts:
    1,486
    I have heard that this firewall has security holes and flaws. True?
     
  11. datarishik

    datarishik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Posts:
    182
    No, not really I think. I have tested PF against Comodo leak testing tools and it passed almost all tests. But please do not take my word because im no expert. See it for yourself.
     
  12. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I have heard that NO security software is perfect. IMO, the only perfect security is a clean image or a pair of scissors. :cool:

    But seriously -- my IT has undertaken several "adventures" with PFW as his primary protection. He gives it very high marks.

    PFW is FW + HIPS. As is true for every classic HIPS, correctly responding to alerts can make or break one's wall of security. HIPS/FWs do not "fail" nearly so often as do the users thereof. Hic sunt dracones :cool:

    By the way, I am a fan of PFW & I use it every so often, a few weeks or so at a time. But I am by no means an expert at "optimal configuration" thereof. (I flit from 1 FW to another. It's fascinating fun).

    You want a real FW expert -- send a PM to Stem. He will eventually reply.
     
  13. bman412

    bman412 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Posts:
    261
    Does it work under a LUA? And can someone post some screenies of the packet filter please.
     
  14. Dundertaker

    Dundertaker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Posts:
    385
    Location:
    Land of the Mer Lion
    Have tried PrivateFirewall ver 7.0.21.1 because of the reviews and the feedback here. But I was dumbfounded about what I had when I used GRCShieldsUP. Please see images attached.

    a) The firewall log will show blank even when I'm connected with the internet. It remained blank until I finished the GRC tests.

    b) The GRC results shows at 1st I have stealth then it would gradually degrade/disappear magnanimously.

    c) I have an open port 135. First time I had it since changing firewalls. I am currently using Ourpost Pro in my main pc(installed PFW7 on a test hdd). I also have OA Premium in an old P4 pc. Both my main/old p4 pc have TruStealth.

    d) Out of the box settings comparison of CIS ver4 had a TruStealth. Please see image. PFW7's setting is already set to "high" as compared to CISver 4 out-of-the-box....:doubt:

    ...Having trouble connecting to PCFlank now(it's been going on until now..too many connections..etc) but results made me think otherwise.:(

    Just my side of the updated version.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Aug 24, 2010
  15. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    @ Dundertaker-

    +Your screenshots do not show the slide setting of PFW's Process Monitor.

    +Neither do you show the status of PFW as reflected by right-clicking its system tray's icon. Was PFW in "Training" mode or what?

    +Neither do you show the status of PFW's "Settings- Basic" -- were you on auto or manual?

    + You did not say whether your stealth tests were conducted with PFW immediately after it was installed, or a little later, or much later.

    +You did not say whether or not you were running behind a router. If you are, is that router NAT enabled? SPI enabled? Or...?
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If your firewall log remains blank, you are having a technical issue & should contact support at privacyware dot com. My biggest issue with PFW's logging is that it does so MUCH logging that I would like to confine it to logging only "blocked connection attempts" etc (such as I do when using OnlineArmor Firewall). PFW is a VERY chatty logger.
     
  16. Gauchoo

    Gauchoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Posts:
    83
    Location:
    Scotland
    What is overall the better firewall between this and Zonealarm free ?
     
  17. ruinebabine

    ruinebabine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,097
    Location:
    QC
    Look 'n' Stop or Outpost.
     
  18. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Those 2 alternatives are not quite comparable to PFW, nor to each other, in terms of capabilities & other key factors.

    PFW is Firewall + HIPS + System Anomaly Detector. Outpost is Firewall + HIPS. LnS is only a Firewall.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    In answer to Gauchoo's question -

    + IMO -- If carefully configured, PFW will give protection that covers a somewhat broader range of threats than is the case for ZA-free. That is because PFW -- over & above its firewall -- also includes a broad-scope HIPS component as well as a System Anomaly component.

    + IMO -- ZA-free will give significantly better protection "out of the box" than PFW, & is the better choice for those who want a FW that is "install it & forget it".
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2010
  19. ruinebabine

    ruinebabine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Posts:
    1,097
    Location:
    QC
    Yes, I know because I use both LnS and OP concurently. Sorry, I was simply in a facetious drunky mood when I send my reply. :ninja:

    And I am now tempted to give a try to PFW. Is it x64 compatable?
     
  20. Gauchoo

    Gauchoo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Posts:
    83
    Location:
    Scotland
    Thanks for the replies.

    I wasn't going to consider Look 'n' Stop or Outpost as they are not free :D

    I decided to go with PFW and currently running it on Windows 7x64 with Panda Antivirus Pro 2011 and everything is running good.

    As with bellgamin's advice, i've set it to manual control & disable auto-response. :thumb:
     
  21. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Yes, so I have heard from other users. I do not have personal experience because I am still using WinXP 32-bit.

    Aloha from Hawaii,
    Bellgamin
     
  22. datarishik

    datarishik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Posts:
    182
    For an average user or novice, any free Firewall including PFW discussed comprehensively in Wilders should suffice.
     
  23. anothermack

    anothermack Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Posts:
    9
    Hello,

    Also with latest PFW version, I am still having the problem (on 64bit Win7) that Avast 5 Free is not auto-updating when going online,

    brgds
    anothermack
     
  24. datarishik

    datarishik Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Posts:
    182
    Even I had this same problem when I had avast. I think you will need to set all rules to allow traffic for avast in applications monitor section. The problem could also be with your Internet connection settings in avast.
     
  25. Dundertaker

    Dundertaker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Posts:
    385
    Location:
    Land of the Mer Lion
    @bellgamin;

    Thanks for the reply.

    +Your screenshots do not show the slide setting of PFW's Process Monitor.
    -- The Process Monitor of PFW7 was all okay. In "Filter mode". Did not had the need to attach it.

    +Neither do you show the status of PFW as reflected by right-clicking its system tray's icon. Was PFW in "Training" mode or what?
    -- No, it was not on training.

    +Neither do you show the status of PFW's "Settings- Basic" -- were you on auto or manual?
    --The out-of-box settings was auto which is test1. Tests 2 and 3 were on Manual.

    + You did not say whether your stealth tests were conducted with PFW immediately after it was installed, or a little later, or much later.
    --Set exclusions with regards to my existing security apps first then open all the apps I use to get the firewall thinking. I do not want any utoward conflict with any of them as I also measure ease of use for my preferences. Test 1 was done day after installation. Test 2 (2days after) and 3(3days after).

    +You did not say whether or not you were running behind a router. If you are, is that router NAT enabled? SPI enabled? Or...?
    -- I do not do firewall test behind a router. I test it first on a dial-up set-up from there if I decide to test it under a router I will. All tests were done under dial-up.

    --Well the firewall log WAS blank that is why I posted it here to show that I am having issues and if possible if there are who in by any chance have experienced it, well maybe share a thing or two about it just like the ID Vault that came with it(optional install). As of my experience it was not as chatty as CISver4. I tried it online for about 12hours and another 6 hours and all I got was about 4 or 5 alerts. As compared to CIS which went all out blocking everything (damn...almost did not get anything done the first 2 days..)even when I just clicked a "trusted" program on my desktop. I configure the firewall on the applications I use so as not to get annoyed with the pop-ups. Smartly I find PFW7 not chatty at all...something like Outpost or sometimes OA. It was also light much like Outpost.

    Just added my observations here. I heard a good lot of points here and majority of it came because you were backing it up(and I believe you dude). From there and from experience of your help here at wilders' I tried it out. Well on my account it did not went fine as compared to the 2 I am trying out now...It's on me if for a time of testing I will like it too or not. Personal preference will always be top for anybody.

    I believe these are preliminary hiccups nothing more. The only firewall I tried with a consistent out-of-the-box settings/ease of use/GRCShieldsUP and PCFlank result was Online Armor Premium/++. Outpost Pro came in second.

    When I mount my test hdd again I'll update here.

    :)
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2010
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.